Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Option 47

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Option 47 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Option 47 - 6/18/2014 8:06:29 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

It's a wonder anyone else has made a working computer game in under 10 years.



Much easier to create an OS without security flaws in that period!

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 31
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 12:45:13 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
The battle of Stalingrad, Excerpted for MWIF, regarding option 47.

========================================================================

The German high command had realized by the Spring of 1942, that Operation Barbarossa had not made the Russians surrender as easily as the French. The despots on both sides of Russian Steppes had locked horns, and both had been gravely damaged.

Germany set it’s direction south in 1942, operations destined to be oil in the Caucuses.

“If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny then I must finish this war.”
—Adolf Hitler

A bold offensive was launched, literally petering out on the face of the caucuses with a propaganda operation done with German mountaineers.

However, the Soviets were building up forces near Stalingrad, and Hitler was becoming obsessed in the day-to-day operations of capturing Stalingrad. So obsessed was Hitler, in fact, that Stalin knew exactly what to do in the oncoming winter.

After long bitter fighting, Germans had forced themselves between the Don and the Volga River into Stalingrad, and had the Romanian 3rd Army manning a front in the north along the Don River on the left flank, while the Romanian 4th Army covered the south on the right flank of Stalingrad.

The attack with 18 Russian infantry divisions and 6 armor brigades smashed the Axis defenders in the north and south, encircling the Germans in 2 days, by the 20th of Nov 1942.
Suddenly over a quarter million Axis troops were surrounded. Russians rushed to reinforce the newly occupied ground.

Immediately food, ammunition, and basic supplies were at a standstill. The very maximum amount of tonnage the air fleet was capable of was some 100 tons of daily airlift, but the troops easily needed 750 tons daily.

Troops began starving nearly immediately. Promises by Goering to provide supplies to the city resulted with over 500 transport aircraft damaged or destroyed beyond repair, and heavy losses to trained crews as well.
Manstein launched Operation Winter Storm to break through to Stalingrad, but failed some 40km from the occupied forces.

NOW TO MWIF

Thankfully, knowing the rules, Jan 1st came. All of the units surrounded, disrupted get their bi-monthly ration of supplies. All the surrounded non-oil dependent units become perfectly reorganized. Bullets are shipped in; men get all the food they need to fight like men again, and even better, some supply from ATR does get though, which is used to reorganize oil dependent armor units.

YaY! Now that all your units are face up, and its winter, nobody will attack you. The defensive effects are too serious for the Russians to do more than attrition with a bunch of poor odds attacks perhaps. At the very least those Russians will have to get extremely lucky to flip and re-attack all of your units in the bad weather. Who cares if one of your two ATR’s got shot down along with its pilot resupplying the armor units?

BACK TO REAL LIFE

Jan 1st came. The Germans were not only starving, but running out of ammunition and the necessities of war.

Vicious combat ensued before a quarter-million man army was completely removed from the Axis arsenal on February 1st.

The loss was a result of smart tactical doctrine by the Russians, and the simple fact that no army isolated from every source of supply has very long to live. Food, bullets, and fuel are simple facts that cannot be dreamt away.

SUMMARY

Clearly those units in the Stalingrad pocket were disrupted. The very description of the situation is similar to the description of what a disrupted unit is. In addition the description also seems to model disrupted and out of supply units. In WIF, out of supply, disrupted units are the *very best* units to attack. They are nearly worthless defensively and cannot move. If you have OOS and disrupted units to attack on the board, you are doing an extremely good job of being a general in WIF. Obviously a quarter million men were cleared from the board in less than 40 days. That is a LOT of units.

So, what’s the problem? In MWIF currently, surrounded units get reorganized. If fact, opponents will simply assume it is part of the game, and a numerous number of scurrilous and unrealistic moves have been opened up to exploit; simply because non-oil dependent units always reorganize. Chasing a non-supply dependent unit can sound challenging, but, is that realistic? I would ask you to consider how many ways you can exploit this rule, before brushing it away as trivial.

How option 47 or whatever became an optional rule is amazing by itself.

How hard could this be to fix? I don't know.

My understanding is that this rule is restricted solely to the end of turn, during the reorganization phase.
This phase only happens once a turn. I certainly wouldn’t mind a longish calculation if it is only once a turn. Throw up a screen that says ‘calculating’ or something even.

This phase does not require that supply be traced normally either. However, it can be complicated by overseas supply. But in the name of all that holy, can’t we have some limited form of it on a temporary basis that only traces a few hexes?

Now I understand that there are a lot of things to fix, but I would certainly like this to get onto the roadmap.

This is an important supply thing.

Please excuse the blurt of words, if incomprehensible, my apologies in hindsight.


_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 32
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 8:19:03 AM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
it will come, in time.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 33
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 2:52:25 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
I think 47 is an optional mostly because of a number of smaller theaters that isolated reorg doesn't handle all that well. The attack on British Somaliland, especially if you're playing with the larger maps, is completely impossible with Isolated reorg. Even if you assume those areas are completely undefended, the Italian inf walk up, flip, and never turn face up again.

You also have all those little Japanese islands in the Pacific, whose outlying garrisons were able to function even after being cut off for months.

WiF's a board game, and MWiF is modeled after the board game, and a board game is never going to be able to deal with an infinitely complex level of detail. What's so great about the day shifting from June 30th to July 1st that re-energizes the entire front on both sides and allows all those units that were too depleted and exhausted to move or attack suddenly tear into each other? Why can't WiF model something like the western desert campaign "properly"? I've had games where the Germans have 10 corps down there, and they'd never be ale to keep a force like that running in real life, but in WiF, as long as I've got a convoy in the sea zone, I'm in supply, no matter how many troops I stuff in. The Germans can advance endlessly as long as they keep their rearward lines of communications open in Russia; not having to deal with the trouble and expense of simply moving supplies to the front that gave them so much trouble in real life.



Option 47 is an option because supply in the game as a whole is somewhat of an abstraction. And I imagine that there's something else too, not wanting to force people to forge a link between re-organization and supply. If an HQ can reorg a bunch of units when everyone's out of supply, perfectly legal in all games, why is there suddenly this deviation from that standard when it comes to final reorg?

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 34
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 4:44:31 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
You could get a gamey effect with Option 47. Imagine Zhukov getting disrupted by an unlucky attack and then the turn goes longer than expected and ends with Zhukov behind German lines and disrupted. Or vice versa with Manstein behind Russian lines.

What gamer in his right mind would EVER attack them and put them out of their misery? Far better to leave your opponent as long as possible with the inability to build that unit back again. A good fix for that is to allow the owner the option to destroy isolated units after placing reinforcements each turn. BTW an O-chit ought to never allow isolated HQs to undisrupt, while we're at it. (An O-chit represents the accumulation of a huge amount of ammunition and POL and other supplies, so how would an isolated HQ get them?)

Any fixes to include Option 47 ought to add those two additions as well.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 35
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 9:36:45 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
I think 47 is an optional mostly because of a number of smaller theaters that isolated reorg doesn't handle all that well. The attack on British Somaliland, especially if you're playing with the larger maps, is completely impossible with Isolated reorg. Even if you assume those areas are completely undefended, the Italian inf walk up, flip, and never turn face up again.


It has been this way for years, and actually makes sense. You see, Italy starts the war neutral with the CW, and has no problem at all placing convoy points in the Red Sea, supplying the Ethiopian troops. The real issue is, how soon will the CW be at war with Italy and close supply? I routinely rescue one or both the supply unit and the Italian infantry unit during the first four phases of a new game. Allies generally will not want to take a chance with US Entry chits so early in the game to declare war on one transport. You are gauranteed to be able to rescue one unit *for sure* before the Allies are even allowed to declare war on you as Italy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
You also have all those little Japanese islands in the Pacific, whose outlying garrisons were able to function even after being cut off for months.

WiF's a board game, and MWiF is modeled after the board game, and a board game is never going to be able to deal with an infinitely complex level of detail. What's so great about the day shifting from June 30th to July 1st that re-energizes the entire front on both sides and allows all those units that were too depleted and exhausted to move or attack suddenly tear into each other? Why can't WiF model something like the western desert campaign "properly"? I've had games where the Germans have 10 corps down there, and they'd never be ale to keep a force like that running in real life, but in WiF, as long as I've got a convoy in the sea zone, I'm in supply, no matter how many troops I stuff in. The Germans can advance endlessly as long as they keep their rearward lines of communications open in Russia; not having to deal with the trouble and expense of simply moving supplies to the front that gave them so much trouble in real life.

Option 47 is an option because supply in the game as a whole is somewhat of an abstraction.


I'd have to say that the rules regarding overseas supply are almost entirely abstract; but so is naval combat, so far so, that I'm pretty comfortable with it. Have you noticed how abstracted Naval Combat is? Most of the strangest naval encounters in the war get reproduced right here in a wargame. Whomever thought the naval system up, really deserves some rich credit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
And I imagine that there's something else too, not wanting to force people to forge a link between re-organization and supply. If an HQ can reorg a bunch of units when everyone's out of supply, perfectly legal in all games, why is there suddenly this deviation from that standard when it comes to final reorg?


Actually, you have to trace a path over friendly hexes to reorganize units with an HQ. The rules lawyers use this phrase, "The HQ's reorganisation range is equal to its reorganisation value in motorized movement points. The path from the HQ to the unit to be reorganised is traced exactly like a basic supply path, except its maximum length is determined by the HQ's reorganisation range, and it may not be traced overseas."

Specifically, a basic supply path does not allow you to trace over enemy owned hexes as you can see below:

ï into an enemy ZOC (unless the hex contains a friendly land unit); or
ï into a hex controlled by another major power unless it agrees; or
ï into a hex controlled by a neutral country (exception: Vichy territory ~ see 17.4 and Sweden ~ see 19.7); or
ï across an alpine hexside; or
ï across a lake hexside (except when frozen); or
ï across an all sea hexside that isn’t a straits hexside (except as an overseas supply path); or
ï for any Soviet unit, into a hex controlled by any other Allied major power (and vice versa) unless the USSR is at war with Germany.

You cannot legally reorganize isolated units with an HQ. If the game allows it, it is a bug.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 36
RE: Option 47 - 6/28/2014 9:53:20 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

You could get a gamey effect with Option 47. Imagine Zhukov getting disrupted by an unlucky attack and then the turn goes longer than expected and ends with Zhukov behind German lines and disrupted. Or vice versa with Manstein behind Russian lines.

What gamer in his right mind would EVER attack them and put them out of their misery? Far better to leave your opponent as long as possible with the inability to build that unit back again. A good fix for that is to allow the owner the option to destroy isolated units after placing reinforcements each turn. BTW an O-chit ought to never allow isolated HQs to undisrupt, while we're at it. (An O-chit represents the accumulation of a huge amount of ammunition and POL and other supplies, so how would an isolated HQ get them?)

Any fixes to include Option 47 ought to add those two additions as well.


You would seriously demand two house rules if we are to include an official optional rule? Awesome, I'm sure Steve has plenty of time for that.

First, you have an excellent point about not being able to remove isolated and disrupted units. Completely agree with you. It should be it's own optional rule, or optionally even, you could discuss it with your opponent, and come to an agreement. You can actually game around the issue. Reorganization of units is automatically done by the program. That cannot be gamed around.

Second, your proposal to change the rules to require supply during the use of an offensive chit is simply a house rule. An offensive chit is a build-up of supplies that is used entirely abstractly. Were the supplies there before the unit was isolated, and simply awaiting use? An offensive chit is extremely abstract in the actual fact that it is not placed on the map, and is therefore theoretically anywhere. Offensive chits do strange and wonderful things, and I certainly am satisfied with them the way they are; yes, even re-organizing out of supply and isolated HQ's. Saving 15 build points in some strange off-map supply depot idea doesn't make me roll over in my sleep, as not actually having option 47 does.

< Message edited by Zorachus99 -- 6/28/2014 11:02:59 PM >


_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 37
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 12:01:37 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
"Ought to" and "demand" do not mean the same thing, but those house rules may not be house rules much longer.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 38
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 12:50:30 AM   
Larry Smith

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline
I seem to remember an optional rule once wherein an HQ in a desert hex could only supply as many units as it had for a reorg value, so Rommel would be able to supply three other units. That would limit the forces in the desert.

As for a pause screen for end-of-turn supply calculations, maybe the guys who came up with that "Hot Army Nurses in Flames" mod could come up with an animated GIF for the pause screen.

Seriously, though, the computer already has to do the calculations to determine if oil dependent units are isolated, so the program is doing some of those long calculation cycles, regardless. There was a proposal to limit the checks to 20 hexes, and I think that's more than fair. Anyone who's got a unit that far from a supply source is either being silly, has a lot of long-range ATR's with nothing better to do, or just had bad luck.

And if that doesn't cut down on the cycles, perhaps shorten it to twelve hexes [about 3x the average movement allowance for units] and maybe add in a point at which the program simply asks the player if a unit is considered to be isolated. As long as the action is reported to the other players, I don't see why the program can't be set up to ask the humans for a little help now and then.

I think it would be worth it if it simplified the job for the programmers.

< Message edited by Larry Smith -- 6/29/2014 2:05:22 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 39
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 1:08:35 AM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline
quote:



It has been this way for years, and actually makes sense. You see, Italy starts the war neutral with the CW, and has no problem at all placing convoy points in the Red Sea, supplying the Ethiopian troops. The real issue is, how soon will the CW be at war with Italy and close supply? I routinely rescue one or both the supply unit and the Italian infantry unit during the first four phases of a new game. Allies generally will not want to take a chance with US Entry chits so early in the game to declare war on one transport. You are gauranteed to be able to rescue one unit *for sure* before the Allies are even allowed to declare war on you


An interesting strategic digression, but not directly related to the point at hand. The Italians had roughly two divisions operating in East Africa, (Not counting the Askaris) and were able to make an attack against admittedly weak opposition, and occupy an area some 130,000 km squared in size. In WiF terms, they'd be isolated the second war broke out, flipped the first time they'd try to move, and never be able to turn face up again in option 47

And while it's an admittedly minor theater of the war, it's something that the game's all or nothing approach to supply does not model well; clearly the Italians were able to procure or manufacture enough stuff to keep them going, at least for the limited duties they were performing in that campaign. Here we have an example of Option 47 making the game less realistic, not more.


quote:


Actually, you have to trace a path over friendly hexes to reorganize units with an HQ. The rules lawyers use this phrase, "The HQ's reorganisation range is equal to its reorganisation value in motorized movement points. The path from the HQ to the unit to be reorganised is traced exactly like a basic supply path, except its maximum length is determined by the HQ's reorganisation range, and it may not be traced overseas."



True, but not what I was getting at. I slapped this picture together to get at what I was saying.


Bock and those three inf with him are all out of supply. He can still reorganize, and in doing so, can reorganize his out of supply buddies. Aside from 47, the concepts of "Supply or out of supply" and "reorganization" are not linked ones. I suspect for this more than any other reason is why it's an optional rule, to keep conceptual complexity to a minimum.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 40
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 2:00:17 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
An interesting strategic digression, but not directly related to the point at hand. The Italians had roughly two divisions operating in East Africa, (Not counting the Askaris) and were able to make an attack against admittedly weak opposition, and occupy an area some 130,000 km squared in size. In WiF terms, they'd be isolated the second war broke out, flipped the first time they'd try to move, and never be able to turn face up again in option 47.


This is correct. I handle this in one of a couple ways.
Option A: Taking Suez is obviously an easy solution, but not practical. However, threatening it while investigating option B can be effective.
Option B: Building Territorial Units is a tricky but potentially interesting option.
Building territorials (which cost 2), you attempt to create a connection through the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan to connect to Libya's border directly. From there, if the rule worked correctly, Italian units can trace back to Italy through Libya if you had convoys in the Med.
However, even better, the territorial unit is always in supply in its home country, and this is valuable. Additionally the territorial, reorganizes if it traces to the capital of it's home country, not Italy. I have seen territorial warfare take large swaths of Africa by moving your territorials once a turn while out of supply. Nearly everyone forgets about Africa, although the CW has a decided advantage being able to provide naval supply while Italy cannot.
Option C: Transport Balbo to the Supply Unit. That will allow you to take an entire turn fully in supply to accomplish some goal. A turn is two months no matter how many impulses you get. That allows you to reorganize oil dependent units (The HQ), and all your Italian units again. I've never tried it, but it can be done.

With proper planning however, I'm sure you could establish an Italian colony in Ethiopia easily, if you only took that pesky Suez canal...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
And while it's an admittedly minor theater of the war, it's something that the game's all or nothing approach to supply does not model well; clearly the Italians were able to procure or manufacture enough stuff to keep them going, at least for the limited duties they were performing in that campaign. Here we have an example of Option 47 making the game less realistic, not more.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
True, but not what I was getting at. I slapped this picture together to get at what I was saying.


Bock and those three inf with him are all out of supply. He can still reorganize, and in doing so, can reorganize his out of supply buddies. Aside from 47, the concepts of "Supply or out of supply" and "reorganization" are not linked ones. I suspect for this more than any other reason is why it's an optional rule, to keep conceptual complexity to a minimum.


I was actually wondering if you were describing this situation.

In this situation you actually have a few options:

1) Use the HQ to re-organize your units,
2) Save the HQ to prevent the Soviets from attacking by providing Emergency HQ support, so that your land units are in supply when attacked, preventing the penalty of being face down and out of supply,
3) If the surrounded group gets some air support, you could drop a supply unit on the HQ and the HQ would get all those benefits of being a primary supply source, etc, for one turn.

For a new player, and perhaps other people, I can certainly see how this would be too complex. Your mileage might vary.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 41
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 2:15:34 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Usually the Italians in East Africa that go on the offensive are the Territorials. They draw supply from any city in their home country and are actually quite tough to isolate, if played properly.

It used to be the Ethiopians were useless once Italy went to war with the CW, because the Suez was closed and they could not trace to a primary source. But that all changed with the FAQ Q22.4-29.
Q: What is the home country of a TERR of a conquered country?
A: Itself. This is the only circumstance where a unit may trace to a friendly controlled city of the conquered major power or minor country.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 6/29/2014 3:16:43 AM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 42
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 11:37:56 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Steve task is to try to code the boardgame. So he really should code option 47 the way it is in RAW7...

If that's not possible, than we should discuss on how or what is needed.

There are a lot of rules in World in Flames which on the one hand seem reasonable, but on the other hand...

Isolation is one of them. Limited Overseas Supply is another one. First you say: let's play with them... Than you find that there are situations which are quite strange with the rule in use (or not in use...).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 43
RE: Option 47 - 6/29/2014 2:27:02 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Steve task is to try to code the boardgame. So he really should code option 47 the way it is in RAW7...
If that's not possible, than we should discuss on how or what is needed.
There are a lot of rules in World in Flames which on the one hand seem reasonable, but on the other hand...
Isolation is one of them. Limited Overseas Supply is another one. First you say: let's play with them... Than you find that there are situations which are quite strange with the rule in use (or not in use...).


Your suggestion is valid.

An option like Unlimited Divisions is an example of a good idea.
It was never in the board game. It was coded for MWiF. Beyond what was in CWiF.
Before other more deserving options.

In practice Unlimited Divisions can be exploited. Not enough time was spent looking at the long term ramifications.
There should have been Nation limits on the number of broken down units. Beyond what can be done without the option.
What the limits could be are worth talking about. If the option was to be modified.

That goes for any option in the game.

No one says a flawed option has to stay flawed. Just because it is in the board game that way.


_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 44
RE: Option 47 - 7/11/2014 3:48:30 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
After some playing I believe this option should be slightly different - whereas units totally unable to trace unlimited path of supply (or an extended version) are not reorganizing; but units able to trace supply to an extended or unlimited range, could.

An example is troops fighting in Ethiopia or those locations where supplies could be scarce - but with lack of HQs to dedicate to the area, the operations in the sector would be minimal (not to add, probably entirely negligible - heck not even a resource there!); but it would make sense that if a unit moves, gets out of supply and then disorganizes by moving further, assuming it could trade even of 8 hexes to a supply hex, it would regain organization in the next turn.

Just how I see it - still fully agreeing pocketed units should not reorganize, besides if they're oil dependant or not.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 45
RE: Option 47 - 7/11/2014 6:26:33 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
The question you can also ask is this: what does a unit need and isn't that available in the area it can trace too. The Italian INF in Ethiopia is out of supply if the Suez Canal is closed. If it moves, it gets disorganised. But why shouldn't it be reorganised end of turn? Personally, I think option 47 is to rigid.

I think the rule should add: "you also reorganise units who can trace towards any secondary supply source which isn't in the ZOC of an enemy unit and if the supply route traced to that source is totally free of enemy ZOC. The secondary supply source itself doesn't need to be in supply to provide for this, except when they are HQ's".

That seems to be more logical and not as rigid.






_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 46
RE: Option 47 - 7/11/2014 6:30:53 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The question you can also ask is this: what does a unit need and isn't that available in the area it can trace too. The Italian INF in Ethiopia is out of supply if the Suez Canal is closed. If it moves, it gets disorganised. But why shouldn't it be reorganised end of turn? Personally, I think option 47 is to rigid.

I think the rule should add: "you also reorganise units who can trace towards any secondary supply source which isn't in the ZOC of an enemy unit and if the supply route traced to that source is totally free of enemy ZOC. The secondary supply source itself doesn't need to be in supply to provide for this, except when they are HQ's".

That seems to be more logical and not as rigid.







quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Steve task is to try to code the boardgame. So he really should code option 47 the way it is in RAW7...



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 47
RE: Option 47 - 7/11/2014 6:34:47 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
I agree on that Paul... But just as you have some thoughts about certain rules, so have I.

Steve has to code Option 47 as it is written. He can't deviate. Perhaps in the future, far, far away, we might see an added option 47b....

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 48
RE: Option 47 - 9/21/2014 4:38:44 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
I've posted multiple times about disorganized units reorganizing when isolated. The core mechanic of supply is broken in my opinion. There isn't a pocket in the game that you can isolate. It's hopelessly frustrating.

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 49
Patience - 9/24/2014 5:59:31 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 833
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
Let's not forget that Rome wasn't built in one day, nor will MWiF be perfect for a long while. We should just have more patience with what items Steve picks to fix first. While getting Option 47 is important I think we can wait a while longer until Steve is ready to perform the programming fix. I don't think this option not being fully functional is a real deal breaker, I mean how many times does this happen in a typical game?

Omnius

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 50
RE: Option 47 - 9/25/2014 6:22:26 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

It's a wonder anyone else has made a working computer game in under 10 years.

warspite1

Why's that then?



Steve is worried about Cycles?

No, Steve is worried about IPC.

quote:

The number of instructions per second and floating point operations per second for a processor can be derived by multiplying the instructions per cycle and the clock speed (measured in cycles per second or Hertz) of the processor in question. The number of instructions per second is an approximate indicator of the likely performance of the processor.

In computer architecture, instructions per clock (instruction per cycle or IPC) is one aspect of a processor's performance: the average number of instructions executed for each clock cycle. It is the multiplicative inverse of cycles per instruction.

The useful work that can be done with any computer depends on many factors besides the processor speed. These factors include the processor architecture, the internal layout of the machine, the speed of the disk storage system, the speed of other attached devices, the efficiency of the operating system, and most importantly the high level design of the application software in use.


Do not confuse IPC with computer speeds:
IPS - Instructions Per Second.
KIPS - Thousands of Instructions Per Second.
MIPS - Millions of Instructions Per Second.

Steve is using "Ye Olde" computer term "cycles" when what he really means IPC.

Meanwhile Crussdaddy is expressing his deep disbelief that this option cannot be coded.


_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 51
RE: Option 47 - 9/25/2014 8:48:52 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Meanwhile Crussdaddy is expressing his deep disbelief that this option cannot be coded.


Happy to hear Crussdaddy believes it can be coded.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 52
RE: Option 47 - 9/26/2014 11:29:59 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Meanwhile Crussdaddy is expressing his deep disbelief that this option cannot be coded.


Happy to hear Crussdaddy believes it can be coded.


It saddens me that you don't think it can be coded.



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 53
RE: Option 47 - 9/26/2014 2:23:36 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Well technically ANYTHING can be coded. The issue is how long will it take and is the cost worth it? If it would take six months and only impact a small percentage of game time versus using that same effort to do something that would have a bigger impact then it would make sense to have this feature way down on the list of things to do.

Personally I can live just fine without this ever being coded. Especially if it meant other items would be delayed that I would much rather see, like DiF for example.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 54
RE: Option 47 - 9/26/2014 2:35:49 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Well it's Netplay next so I can't see this being coded in the near future.

Perhaps if and when Steve looks at coding missing optionals, this should be first on the list?

Maybe have a poll of what people want coded - say their top three - and go with the majority view?

Personally I want ASW units in play.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 55
RE: Option 47 - 9/26/2014 11:53:17 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Meanwhile Crussdaddy is expressing his deep disbelief that this option cannot be coded.


Happy to hear Crussdaddy believes it can be coded.


It saddens me that you don't think it can be coded.



Then - be happy!

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 56
RE: Option 47 - 9/27/2014 6:15:41 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well it's Netplay next so I can't see this being coded in the near future.

Perhaps if and when Steve looks at coding missing optionals, this should be first on the list?

Maybe have a poll of what people want coded - say their top three - and go with the majority view?

Personally I want ASW units in play.


This is why I'm not beta testing the interim releases. I'm sure I could help report bugs, but honestly, I'm not going to be able to play this game when netplay releases either.

I've had games hinge on supply, and as implemented, all of those things are well-nigh impossible to do. Getting an opponent to agree to disorganize his units, when they are organized isn't easy. Tracking units for supply manually is insane, i bought the MWIF to do this.

Worst of all, this so called optional rule 47, only screws up supply once a turn. At the end of the turn. It's not like this calculation is done more than one time a turn and will screw up the game with a huge number of new on-the-fly instructions.

And yes, I would like ASW units myself, but currently, since I bought the bloody game, convinced someone else to buy the game, I consider it my right to post comments about this issue.




_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 57
RE: Option 47 - 9/27/2014 6:22:40 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Who said you don't have the right to post????

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 58
RE: Option 47 - 9/27/2014 8:11:17 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well it's Netplay next so I can't see this being coded in the near future.

Perhaps if and when Steve looks at coding missing optionals, this should be first on the list?

Maybe have a poll of what people want coded - say their top three - and go with the majority view?

Personally I want ASW units in play.


Changing a project plan by directing a software project by poll results is a poor idea.
The time for that kind of input was prior to the start of the project.

Letting Steve follow his plan will return the best results, IMHO.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 59
RE: Option 47 - 9/27/2014 8:26:40 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well it's Netplay next so I can't see this being coded in the near future.

Perhaps if and when Steve looks at coding missing optionals, this should be first on the list?

Maybe have a poll of what people want coded - say their top three - and go with the majority view?

Personally I want ASW units in play.


Changing a project plan by directing a software project by poll results is a poor idea.
The time for that kind of input was prior to the start of the project.

Letting Steve follow his plan will return the best results, IMHO.
warspite1

Given what is to be done, I would be very surprised if there is a set plan for the optionals and their order of completion at present!! If you think that "kind of input" or detail has been made and mapped out I think you may be a tad off base (although I am only guessing like you)

The "plan" has been evolving since launch. The current plan is netplay next. After that is gotten into half decent shape (and I have no idea what that means exactly (and even less idea how long it will take)) I do not know whether it is on to optionals, AI, single map scenarios or what first. I am sure we will be told once the issues around netplay become clearer.

However, optionals are important to some - 47 seems particularly grating to a few and all I am suggesting is that when the time for optionals does come around, an order needs to be mapped out - and finding out what is important to the paying public may be a way to go about it. After all, that (customer wishes) is why netplay is getting looked at next before further bug fixing.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 9/27/2014 9:31:32 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Option 47 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.141